Gran Torino (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Hey You Kids Get Off My Lawn

Oh my god, it’s finally happened: Someone made Hey You Kids Get Off My Lawn: The Motion Picture. It’s a Moving(TM) and Poignant(TM) tale of a crotchety old man who learns the true meaning of something or other. Could be neighborliness. Could be tolerance. Could be surviving in a world in which crotchety-old-man-itude has become a cinematic cliché. It doesn’t matter. The shell of the crotchety old man — who is, underneath, of course, a warm and genuine fella — has been broken. Hoorah!
Someday, we will see the crotchety-old-man movie in which someone finally cracks after days and weeks and months of trying to get through to the alleged creamy chocolately center of a crotchety old man — and failing — and says, “Hey, dude, there’s a reason why you’re a miserable lonely old bastard, and it’s because you’re really not a very nice person at all. Maybe try stopping being such a bigoted close-minded old fart, and you might have an actual friend or two, or at least someone who can tolerate pretending to like you for an hour or two.”

This is not that movie.

This is a disposable made-for-the-Hallmark-Channel melodrama, and it would be dismissed as such if it starred Wilford Brimley as Wilford Brimley, instead of starring Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Space Cowboys) as Wilford Brimley. Eastwood’s Walt Kowalkski is, at least, apparently perfect happy to be left alone in the miserable-old-bastard room of his own — as long as the damn kids stay off his lawn, of course. But the rest of the movie refuses to let him stay there, and intends to drag him, via the cheapest, most obvious methods possible, into the sunshine of friendship and love and puppies and ice cream. I’d like to think that the real Clint would have kicked the ass of any movie that tried that on him. Maybe he really is getting old. But Eastwood directed this himself, so you have to assume that things are the way he wants them to be.

But honestly, the minute Gran Torino forces Walt, a former Detroit auto assembly-line worker and Korean War vet, to say things like “Would it kill you to buy American?” — or to actually yell at other characters to get off his lawn — all pretense to integrity and authenticity goes out the window. Did screenwriters Dave Johannson and Nick Schenk mean to be funny, putting such words into the mouth of Clint Eastwood? Is it meant to be some sort of cliché buster to have Dirty Harry himself yell at people about his lawn, like we might actually consider him likely to blow away the neighborhood kids who transgress?

Walt’s neighbors don’t seem to take him seriously, though, so why should we? In fact, teenage Sue (Ahney Her) is right in his face, inviting him to barbecues at her house next door and everything. This totally rattles Walt, because, you know, they’re Asian — Hmong refugees — and don’t they know Walt shot gooks like them during the war?

Now, there’s a certain value in portraying racists as clueless dolts and just laughing at their idiocy, but there’s something about how Walt’s racism is played for laughs here that’s disturbing. It’s meant to be charming: Oh, there goes Grandpa again, ranting against the blacks and the queers and the immigrants — ain’t he adorable? He isn’t: he’s embarrassing.

But Gran Torino is not embarrassed for Walt — he’s the hero here. Not only does it seem extremely unlikely that an 80-year-old man is suddenly going to change his attitudes about, you know, everything because his immigrant Asian neighbors are suddenly nice to him, but it also seems extremely convenient that events in Walt’s neighborhood should transpire to compell him to demonstrate how dramatically his ideas about everything have changed. His beloved titular car is threatened, Walt reacts to that in a way that seems wildly out of character based upon what we know of him to that point… and wal-lah! The crotchety old man starts learning the real meaning of stuff.

I suppose I sound ungenerous: of course people deserve to treated well even if they’re miserable old bastards, and of course it’s never too late to change one’s ways. But I’m talking about life as Hollywood filters it, and the filters here are preposterous. Of course, the reality that there really is no helping some people, no matter how generous one is with them, is too frustrating for The Movies to acknowledge, because it does not make for happy endings. And the lack of a happy ending is somethat that, alas, a movie like Gran Torino cannot countenance.


Watch Gran Torino online using LOVEFiLM’s streaming service.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
subscribe
notify of
165 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
rich b
rich b
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 7:06pm

you’ve got some serious man hating anger issues, woman.

go get laid.

rich b
rich b
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 7:10pm

one more thing – get yourself a proofreader.

amateur hour.

thanks for wasting 3 minutes of my precious life.

allan
allan
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 7:14pm

Some interesting comments about Gran Torino. Too bad you didn’t enjoy the film as much as most viewers (and critics) have. Ah well, as Dirty Harry once said, “Opinions are for a–holes; everybody’s got one.”

danny
danny
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 7:26pm

Haha
im with the first guy!

JoshB
JoshB
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 7:37pm

you’ve got some serious man hating anger issues, woman…go get laid.

Thou shalt not feed the trolls.

Someday, we will see the crotchety-old-man movie in which someone finally cracks after days and weeks and months of trying to get through to the alleged creamy chocolately center of a crotchety old man — and failing — and says, “Hey, dude, there’s a reason why you’re a miserable lonely old bastard, and it’s because you’re really not a very nice person at all.

Go watch any random episode of House. This will be said almost verbatim at least 27 times! And it never works! House is my hero.

S.K. Cooper
S.K. Cooper
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 8:13pm

rich b is a butthead. On the other hand, nothing turns me into a crotchety old man faster than someone misspelling “voilà” as “wal-lah!”

drew ryce
drew ryce
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 8:19pm

MaryAnn, isn’t this movie just a race swap re-make of The Karate Kid?

Think about it. Older, decorated, war veteran (living alone but owns a great car) rescues a fatherless child from a neighborhood gang and teaches him to stand up for himself by making him do a bunch of household chores that are actually teaching him the secrets of self-respect. Later, the old guy will give daid great car to the newly manly Kid so he can hit on the hot girl next door cheerleader type with style. Come to think of it, the bad guys in the Karate Kid were racist anti-Asians.

Jason
Jason
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 8:51pm

I’ll still watch it when it is viewable at home. I like Clint and I hate kids on my lawn. Once you are paying a mortgage on your own property, your willingness to put up with crap drops dramatically.

drew ryce
drew ryce
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 9:56pm

MaryAnn’s spelling of ‘wal·lah’ actually works well in describing Eastwoods character if we use the original Hindi & Urdu meaning i.e. “one in charge, from Sanskrit pāla protector, from pālayati, pārayati he guards; akin to Sanskrit piparti he saves..”

Hdj
Hdj
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 10:45pm

lol Wilford Brimley, I just call that guy the oat meal man, the oatmeal man fighting off gangs, that would be hallmark channel movie of the year.
I bet my dad would love this movie he’s a NAM vet, and he watches the cowboy channel 24/7 and always get “they play the same damn movie everynight” , all I can do is sigh and die a little bit inside.

twinsrule
twinsrule
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 11:49pm

Moron

Hdj
Hdj
Fri, Jan 02, 2009 11:57pm

most be a fan of oatmeal

Chuck
Chuck
Sat, Jan 03, 2009 12:48am

I have to agree with the reviewer. This movie really stunk. The acting was horrible, especially the asian actors, and Clint Eastwood was like wood. I didn’t believe any part of this story. At times it seemed that it was just clipped together any old way without regard to continuity and consistency. Example: The asian kid next door tries to steal the old man’s prized car out of the garage and the few scenes later the car is shown parked outside on the driveway in the front of the house? Who would do that? Another Example(possible spoiler?): The old man beats up a gang member and a few scenes later the gang shoots up the neighbors house? What? Come on. Please dont insult your intelligence by going to see this.

Bruce
Bruce
Sat, Jan 03, 2009 1:23am

Hrmm I personally was pleased with this movie. I’ve read a few reviews on it and in my opinion none of them has hit the mark. I think everyone has their own piece of mind and mines is they depict the situations as it is. There are more minorities then just Latino and Blacks that get affected by society. There are Asians and more then one sub group of Asians. We all have our own traditions and culture of life to live by. The only people who wouldn’t be able to appreciate this movie is those who have never gone outside of their house and into a neighborhood where there is actual diversity. The acting for me was not a problem, it was not expected that they would be wonderful in your acting, the movie isn’t a super budget that had the most famous of actors in it. Despite the acting i was more amazed by the plot. It was not as predictable as some people say. How can you predict self sacrifice from a grumpy old man who do not think of anyone other then himself because he literally disliked the world.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sat, Jan 03, 2009 12:11pm

nothing turns me into a crotchety old man faster than someone misspelling “voilà” as “wal-lah!”

It’s not a misspelling of “voilà.” It’s the proper spelling of the word people use when they mispronounce “voilà.”

It’s kind of an analogy, see: the people who use foreign words incorrectly are sort of an equivalent to the people who make “crotchety old man learns the true meaning of stuff” movies.

S.K. Cooper
S.K. Cooper
Sat, Jan 03, 2009 2:32pm

That explains the line in your bio about being born in Voilà Voilà, Washington.

Robert
Robert
Sat, Jan 03, 2009 4:40pm

Fantastic review, as usual, MaryAnn. I laughed out loud a few times, and then read it out loud to my boyfriend.

Chris
Chris
Sun, Jan 04, 2009 12:12pm

You so fucking missed every aspect of this movie. They set the fucking tone in the first 10 minutes with the way he views his own grand children. This movie is very much about the changing culture in America, how children dont appreaciate what is handed to them, how none of them want to earn rewards. The second aspect is that of Walt discovering that the same ideals he does hold true are still present in others, he just never realized it before because of the hate installed years ago. But what does he do, he learns more about them, and he learns from them. He also sees that they are facing much bigger problems than his own people and that if he doesnt do something, the ideals they have done so much to protect could be lost just as easily as his own families’ ideals were.

The third great part of this movie was brining back of language. The fact that no one should get to upset when friends make blantant jokes about your age, weight, hair situation, race, gender or sexual orientation. That maybe this tolerence stuff should be true in the work place, but that doesnt mean it cant be said between people who you would do anything to help when the time comes.

I thought this movie had a very happy ending with his bitchy grand kid getting what she deserved

JoshB
JoshB
Sun, Jan 04, 2009 2:36pm

You so fucking missed every aspect of this movie. They set the fucking tone in the first 10 minutes

I don’t think she fucking missed the fucking point. The review makes it clear that she understood the fucking tone, which was fucking trite and fucking obvious. Fuckity fuck.

Robert
Robert
Sun, Jan 04, 2009 11:08pm

Just saw the movie. Wow. It is amazing. Not usually a fan of Eastwood movies but this won me over. Do yourself a favor and ignore this review. It is replete with errors.

For example, Walt learns that the Hmong fought along side Americans against the VietCong – that’s why he warms up to them.

There are more errors but I don’t have the time to point out each one. It would also ruin the movie for those who haven’t watched yet.

:-)

Erga
Erga
Sun, Jan 04, 2009 11:13pm

You obviously didn’t pay attention to the movie MarryAnn. You just collected the elements of his character from the beginning and constructed some anti-conformist(“non-cliche”) way of explaining the the results of the story. Instead you created a very cliche, anti-conformist rant trashing the movie. There a number of things that were not taken into consideration in your review of the movie, one being the circumstances and situations the crochety old man went through to develop such a character. The point of the movie is not to promote bigotry, its intentions are obviously the opposite: to help show exactly why such bigotry exists and why it is committ the fundamental attribution error (if you don’t know what it is look it up- learning= good). Instead, you yourself, MaryAnn commit such an error. No one has told you how to think that themain character is warm and fuzzy on the inside, because that itself is debatable. It is for you to decide whether Walt is truly “at peace” by the end of the movie, and whether or not justice is served. But then again you are also free to your own opinion, happy blogging MaryAnn.

Erga
Erga
Sun, Jan 04, 2009 11:16pm

Please excuse my errors, hopefully, readers understand my comments.

Mel
Mel
Mon, Jan 05, 2009 8:21pm

The fact that no one should get to upset when friends make blantant jokes about your age, weight, hair situation, race, gender or sexual orientation. That maybe this tolerence stuff should be true in the work place, but that doesnt mean it cant be said between people who you would do anything to help when the time comes.

Hahahaha, yes, what I really need is friends who insult me all the time! I’ll make a note to fire the friends I already have who manage to be supportive AND pleasant to be around.

Haddi Nuff
Haddi Nuff
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 1:48am

You’re probably asking yourself . . . did he star in five movies or six? And you know, in all the ennnui of this recent cliche I completely lost track . . .

But you gotta ask yourself, “Do I feel gullible?”

Well . . . do ya, punk?

Tim
Tim
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 5:59am

“This totally rattle Walt, because, you know, they’re Asian — Hmong refugees — and don’t they know Walt shot gooks like them during the war?”

Not only is this sentence grammatically incorrect, it is also completely ignorant, even though you tried to write it in a satirically ignorant manner. Nice try, but you’re not educated enough. Hmong are not “gooks.” They are an ethnic minority predominantly from China/Vietnam/Laos.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 8:52am

Yes, Tim, *I* know that. Walt does not.

Sheesh. People really do need their hands held through anything above a fifth-grade reading level, don’t they?

You’re correct about the rattle/rattles typo, though, Tim. Thanks for pointing it out. (If that was the grammatical error you were referring to.)

drew ryce
drew ryce
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 1:04pm

Tim, be careful about playing the ‘lack of education’ card. Both Eastwood and MaryAnn used the “gook” term correctly to include the Hmong among it’s ugly and racist numbers:

[deleted what appeared to be an entire encyclopedia entry. folks: link, don’t steal–maj]

drew ryce
drew ryce
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 6:57pm

[deleted what appeared to be an entire encyclopedia entry. folks: link, don’t steal–maj]

Sorry, here is the post complete with link (for any that care) to a scholarly discussion demonstrating the use of ‘the term’:

Tim, be careful about playing the ‘lack of education’ card. Both Eastwood and MaryAnn used the “gook” term correctly to include the Hmong among it’s ugly and racist numbers:

http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/gook.htm

T-Man
T-Man
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 8:39pm

If you would actually review the movie instead of attempting (note the attempting part) to come across as witty this review may not of been a waste of my life. Next time why don’t you actually talk about the movie instead of taking one scene and attempting (theres that word again!) to be funny by pointing out the “cliches”

Basically you’ve come across as an pathetically typical overly sensitive and whiny anti-establishment blogger who cringes at every non-PC comment they encounter. It’s so ironic how you mock a “cliche movie” in an such a cliche manner. If you would dig a little deeper you may realize Eastwood wasn’t being vulgar for the sake of vulgarity.

Oh wait, nevermind. Then you couldn’t use your old fart joke! There goes the review!

JG
JG
Tue, Jan 06, 2009 11:39pm

I wanted to like this flick going in, but the script kept beating us over the head with the “redemption” theme (culminating in the ridiculous crucification symbolism at the end) that it left me feeling annoyed, which in turn kept me from feeling any sympathy for any of the characters. I thought “About Schmidt” was a much more believable “Crotchety Old Man Learns The True Meaning Of Stuff” movie.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 12:33am

you’ve come across as an pathetically typical overly sensitive and whiny anti-establishment blogger who cringes at every non-PC comment they encounter.

I find it astonishing that any complaint about a movie that’s not “PC” — damn, I hate that term — is automatically construed as a complaint about the non-PC-ness itself…

matt
matt
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 2:22am

I’m with the first guy.
Go get laid, in your quest of trying to be unique you are embarrassing yourself.

It is OK to admit a movie is GOOD, even if they majority of the people like it.

Mark
Mark
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 3:58am

It is OK to admit a movie is GOOD, even if [sic]they majority of [sic]the people like it.

If you think that MaryAnn gives bad reviews to movies that are popular, how do you explain the literally hundreds of very positive reviews she’s written about movies that were also both commercially successful and well-regarded by other critics?

Chris
Chris
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 9:13am

I will say that with the exception being comedy, Mary Ann usually falls in with the majority of critics on major motion pictures. She loved Dark Knight and Iron Man and based Speed Racer and The Spirit.

Where Mary Ann goes a-wall in my opinion are the indie films. She will way overvalue some movies (The Fall was a decent visual but terribly acted movie, Synedoche, NY isnt even in the top tier of Kauffman) and not give any appreciation or very little appreciation to some movies that have great acting all around ( This movie, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Doubt, and Appaloosa are good examples).

And then there are real big mysteries to me. Lakeview Terrance, Nim’s Island, Hancock The X-Files: I Want to Believe and Stop-Loss are ranked as must see while Quantum of Solace,Hellboy II, 21, and Horton Hears a Who are left to die.

drew ryce
drew ryce
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 11:45am

Anybody attempting to characterise MaryAnn as an elitist hater of popular movies needs to take a look at her posted list of Top 100 Movies https://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2006/01/top_100.html

Her list is a virtual who’s who of recent popular film.

JoshB
JoshB
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 12:46pm

Where Mary Ann goes a-wall

It’s AWOL, an acronym for absent without leave, which doesn’t make sense the way you used it.

The troll is feasting on the seriousness of your posts.

Chris
Chris
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 3:28pm

Josh,

Thanks, I was in a rush and didnt even think to check that lol.

She is all over the map on indie flicks, she hates the popular comedies, but adores British comedy, she likes what most critics like when it comes to big budget film, and she loves scifi movies more than most and it shows as she hardly critizes any film of genre. Understand what I’m saying now?

Anne-Kari
Anne-Kari
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 4:25pm

Chris – I think I understand. You’re saying she has particular tastes and strong personal opinions about certain genres and their merits.

That’s a movie reviewer for you. They all have their own take on things. That’s what they do.

I’ve hated some flicks MAJ loved, and loved some she hated. And I’ve noticed that she doesn’t let her personal like/dislike of certain genres color her take on the actual individual movie. More than once she’s given a terrible review to a scifi flick (“Matrix Revolutions”, “Pitch Black”, etc). She’s not a big fan of Romance films, which are so often cliched and not terribly romantic, but she loved “Definitely, Maybe” – because it wasn’t a cliched mess and had genuine emotion.

I don’t mean to take on the role of Flickfilosopher apologist (I mean ‘apologist’ in the ancient Greek sense), but really. She’s a reviewer. She writes about her reaction to what she sees.

Mark
Mark
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 5:00pm

she loves scifi movies more than most and it shows as she hardly critizes any film of genre.

As evidenced by her glowing reviews of (for example) The Spirit, The Happening, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Babylon A.D., Beowulf, Daredevil, Evolution, and especially Tomb Raider. Oh, wait — MaryAnn actually panned all of them comprehensively, because she thought they were bad movies. You could easily find another hundred negative reviews of “genre” movies in her archives if you looked.

Understand what I’m saying now?

That MaryAnn has actual separate opinions about each and every film she sees, based on the film itself and not its prominence or genre, and that he has personal tastes and preferences that influence her opinions?

(and, for newcomers to the site who enjoy the FlickFilosopher reviewing style, do yourselves a favor and read the Tomb Raider review.)

Anne-Kari
Anne-Kari
Wed, Jan 07, 2009 5:12pm

Mark – you are now an honorary Flickfilosopher apologist. I share my mantle with you gladly.

And oh my god YES – her “Tomb Raider” review is pretty much my all-time favorite.

stellersjay
stellersjay
Thu, Jan 08, 2009 1:52am

A number of people have criticized the actors portraying the Hmong neighbour kids, but I wonder if they didn’t give the director exactly what he wanted.

Sue is vocal and assertive, and refuses to kowtow to the neighbourhood thugs. She’s eventually punished severely for it, but only after needing to be rescued from her presumption by Walt. Thao is meek and Walt scorns his enjoyment of “women’s work” like gardening. Making Thao “man up” seems to mean getting him to understand that females (like his mother or sister) should never be giving orders, and men bond by trading casual insults and trash-talking the wife.

When Walt realized that he had more in common with his Hmong neighbours than his own kids, I sat up. Watching from Canada, where immigration patterns have shifted dramatically in the past 30 years, it drew attention to a paradox. In the past, most immigrants were from Europe, and most voted Liberal, which is considered left of the Democrats. In recent years, though, the bulk of immigrants have come from Asia, and it’s had implications for voting patterns.

The traditional values of Asian immigrants are more in line with those of conservatives, who hold the strongest anti-immigrant views, than with those of the liberals who typically defend immigrants. I mention it because Walt’s new respect for his neighbours appears to me to be a function of their shared conservatism.

It’s easy to dislike the kids who have no use for Dad, but Walt admits that it’s his own fault. I feel for him, or would if it weren’t only what Walt missed by his lack of involvement in his kids’ lives that Eastwood seems to find tragic.

The more I go over it in my mind, the more Gran Torino strikes me as paean to conservatism, and an assertion that “real” US values are conservative.

Chris
Chris
Thu, Jan 08, 2009 8:38am

Mark,

You listed two scifi movies in there, one that was a remake. The Spirit and Daredevil are comic book movies, The Happening, while it has scifi parts is a thriller, Beowulf is an ancient story based in fantasy and Tomb Raider is a video game adaptation that is at heart a adventure type movie such as National Treasure. So wow she hated two of the worst scifi movies made this year and a comedy with scifi elements from the early part of this decade. I never said she never critizes the genre, I said she hardly critizes it. She bashes a lot more dramas and especially comedies. She still loved X-Files, Wall-E, Cloverfield, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Jumper and that’s just this year alone. Some of those are good movies, some um well they are not.

Also, BS on the seperate opinions for each film line. She has an apparent hate for Seth Rogen that runs deep and was only put aside once because he happened to be in a Kevin Smith film.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Thu, Jan 08, 2009 10:51am

So wow she hated two of the worst scifi movies made this year

See, it’s not that I’m opinionated, it’s that I’m not always opinionated in the same way that Chris is! It’s not at all weird or odd that I hate movies that Chris deems are bad, it’s just weird and odd when I hate movies that Chris knows are good!

Chris: The job of a critic is not to validate your opinion, or to invalidate it. There’s no need to get so upset just because we don’t agree on every movie.

Chris
Chris
Thu, Jan 08, 2009 12:24pm

Mary Ann,

I asure you I am not upset, I was just simply pointing out what I have noticed, primarly on your taste and reviews. I like to question anyone who has a different point of view than my own and find it so much more interesting than constantly agreeing with each other. Hopefully I can find a flaw to your argument and it exploit it lol. In the end Mary Ann, just as your reviews reveal your opinions, my comments simply imply my views.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Thu, Jan 08, 2009 3:59pm

Well, as had been pointed out, I *do* have my own taste and opinions. What would be the point of a critic who didn’t?

JasonJ
JasonJ
Fri, Jan 09, 2009 12:17pm

crotchety old man gave you the right to sit there, drink your French wine and write your pointless biased so-called review. Go watch “Milk” again.

Nothing more imtolerant than a young arrogant elitist liberal woman.

I somehow doubt MaryAnn is deliberately impuning the sacrifice us veterans have given for our country in this review. It is a review of a movie, not a review of military veterans and our service to our country.

[I deleted the comment JasonJ is quoting for being trollish–maj]

kit
kit
Fri, Jan 09, 2009 2:42pm

I have to agree with this review. I have always been and remain a big Eastwood fan but I hate to think that this is going to be his final effort, sour note that it is. A film should engage an audience and provoke a mental effort on their part, not spoon-feed in the most heavy handed way possible.

Paul
Paul
Fri, Jan 09, 2009 5:20pm

It is curious about the relationship between white liberals and ethnic minorities. I heard that a lot of the work in California for gay rights was undone when blacks turned out in droves for Obama, and in the same election gay marriage was overturned. I realize that is argument by implication, but given African-American religious conservativism it is not surprising.

And conservatives try to justify keeping immigrants out by saying they are a threat to American values, only to stumble trying to explain what is wrong with hard work and strong family bonds. In Iowa the Feds cracked down in illegal immigrant labor in a small town, sending hundreds of families back to Mexico. The laborers were replaced by drifters and the crime rate sky rocketed.

As to the Hmong, as our allies in Vietnam, they were in real danger when we pulled out. When they tried to immigrate, only a few states were gracious enough to welcome them.

dgrhm
dgrhm
Fri, Jan 09, 2009 7:33pm

It’s kind of an analogy, see: the people who use foreign words incorrectly are sort of an equivalent to the people who make “crotchety old man learns the true meaning of stuff” movies.

Brilliant. Perfectly said.

TJ
TJ
Sat, Jan 10, 2009 12:09am

For anyone with first hand war experience, or relatives carrying around the memories, the sub plots in this movie were incredibly accurate. The depth of taking a war survivor suffering from survivor guilt and bringing him to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice is an amazing story. The plots and sub plots provided great depth to the story and the rants of the characters provided great humor. The actors also accurately portrayed the traditions on the Hmong people and the youth blending those traditions with american life. One of the best movies I have seen in years! Go see it, but take the time to let the sub plots sink in and reflect on them. Its a must see !!!!